FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

Some gatehouse lackies need to be reassigned and sent out to do some real
work. 150,000 kids and one part time person in charge? They aren't checking anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

From a cost-benefit (to FCPS) perspective, wouldn't investing in more people to check residency be more efficient than Nardos King being allowed to staff an equity fiefdom?

And what is it finally going to take before they look at all these IB schools and figure out it's a waste of money that also contributes heavily to enrollment imbalances?

All these things should have happened BEFORE they started a county-wide boundary review. Thanks to Karl Frisch and his fellow incompetents, every major FCPS initiative now seems to be ass-backwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

Except it’s not that overcrowded and that can be solved by looking at pupil placements and transfers. Why should those kids get to stay and my kids in boundary need to leave?

^^^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

DP.

They won’t do wide-scale residency checks. It’s an open FCPS secret that more poors are committing residency fraud than higher SES. For every loudoun county student caught there’d be several housekeeper’s kids caught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

You don't even need a full residency audit. Just check ALL the new applicants--especially transfers. And, check those who raise suspicion--teachers sometimes get information. Bus drivers, too.

Then, random checks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

It's not overcrowded and the CIP numbers in all of the ES schools are falling, not rising. There is no new construction inside the boundary. But maybe WSHS is being targeted so someone can move the small number of Rolling Valley kids in really nice houses to WSHS and out of Lewis.

Exactly this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

DP.

They won’t do wide-scale residency checks. It’s an open FCPS secret that more poors are committing residency fraud than higher SES. For every loudoun county student caught there’d be several housekeeper’s kids caught.

At our school it is the wealthier families committing residency fraud. Big newer Lewis zoned single family houses, not ESL families living in apartments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

You don't even need a full residency audit. Just check ALL the new applicants--especially transfers. And, check those who raise suspicion--teachers sometimes get information. Bus drivers, too.

Then, random checks.

Or check every entering 7th grader and freshman, plus new students. Require a copy of a urility bill in a parent's name from the previous month before registering any 7th or 9th gtader for classes.

Or, once a school hits 100% capacity, require a yearly residency check of all students. This eould only affect schools that might get rezoned, cutting back on the amount of work.

2 families using 1 address could be discovered very quickly with a basic spreadsheet sort. Anyone with elementary Excel skills could accomplish this in 15 minutes or less per school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

DP.

They won’t do wide-scale residency checks. It’s an open FCPS secret that more poors are committing residency fraud than higher SES. For every loudoun county student caught there’d be several housekeeper’s kids caught.

At our school it is the wealthier families committing residency fraud. Big newer Lewis zoned single family houses, not ESL families living in apartments.

Not surprised at all about that honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When they didn’t propose to move any Langley kids to Herndon or West Springfield kids to Lewis it became clear this boundary study was total bullshit. Apart from dealing with Coates they should call it all off.

Equity warriors bring down the entire system. They suck.

+1
They really do.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

You don't even need a full residency audit. Just check ALL the new applicants--especially transfers. And, check those who raise suspicion--teachers sometimes get information. Bus drivers, too.

Then, random checks.

Or check every entering 7th grader and freshman, plus new students. Require a copy of a urility bill in a parent's name from the previous month before registering any 7th or 9th gtader for classes.

Or, once a school hits 100% capacity, require a yearly residency check of all students. This eould only affect schools that might get rezoned, cutting back on the amount of work.

2 families using 1 address could be discovered very quickly with a basic spreadsheet sort. Anyone with elementary Excel skills could accomplish this in 15 minutes or less per school.

I’d like them to share what they currently have in place, because this is a simple solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

It's not overcrowded and the CIP numbers in all of the ES schools are falling, not rising. There is no new construction inside the boundary. But maybe WSHS is being targeted so someone can move the small number of Rolling Valley kids in really nice houses to WSHS and out of Lewis.

Exactly this.

Technically it is overcrowded by 275 students. Roughly 11% over the Design Capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

You don't even need a full residency audit. Just check ALL the new applicants--especially transfers. And, check those who raise suspicion--teachers sometimes get information. Bus drivers, too.

Then, random checks.

Or check every entering 7th grader and freshman, plus new students. Require a copy of a urility bill in a parent's name from the previous month before registering any 7th or 9th gtader for classes.

Or, once a school hits 100% capacity, require a yearly residency check of all students. This eould only affect schools that might get rezoned, cutting back on the amount of work.

2 families using 1 address could be discovered very quickly with a basic spreadsheet sort. Anyone with elementary Excel skills could accomplish this in 15 minutes or less per school.

This is very sensible, so of course FCPS would never do it. They already have a system-wide database of all students' addresses and it would be easy to check for duplicates.